Thai

Good nonsense you wrote.

IdriveFast

you dont have anything to say about my x5 g55 comments?

show me how im wrong, if you can

IdriveFast

other than the badge thai, whats the difference between bmw making the x5 4.6,4.8 and mb/amg making ml55 g55?


care to explain?

Thai

Dude, read what i wrote above. Here is a brief summary: X5 and G-wagens are totally different vehicle. One was designed for on-road handling...the other a military vehicle for off-roading. It makes MORE SENSE to make an X5 4.8 than make a G55 AMG. Now, i am not a big fan of X5 either, but it makes more sense. I am glad that BMW M did not touch the X5...that would be a joke, just like Porsche Cayenne.

Again, read what i wrote about the G-wagen above. The ONLY thing the G55 does good is straight line speed...0-something. Otherwise, handling, braking, steering, "feel", etc. suck the big one. I would bet that a base X5 can outhandle, outbrake, and feel better on-road than a G55 AMG.

Bottom line, G55 AMG is a joke in the car industry IMO. Oh yeah, to make a tank handle like an Excursion, AMG stiffen the crap out of the springs and shocks, producing a ride that is plain ridiculous. In doing so, they took away off-road capability.

Please read above posts for more details. I do NOT agree with you.

Here is what i wrote before: (just in case you're too lazy to look back)

IdriveFast

and all im saying is that the end result is the same, a compromise vehicle that does not do anything too great, handling, speed, feel, off roading


only thing is that the G55 is way faster

reggid

So what is your point? All BMW and MB cars are comprimised in some way!!!

Relative to most cars the X5 4.8 and ML55 perform well in acceleration, handling and driver enjoyment. As you said not great but then again what does?
If there was a vehicle that did everything great, then all current vehicles would be obscelete!

oggle

Look at the SUVs on the road. How many people ACTUALLY take them offroading? So basically according to Thai's logic, all SUVs are useless. And the G, as according to him, is a "military" vehicle. Yeah right... what do you do? Pretend you're GI Joe driving in the mine fields of Iraq? What a joke.

And exactly what is your point regarding the AMG on the G class? What HP/torque threshold do you hold something as being "useless"? Is it the badge, is it the HP/torque? What is it exactly? You are against an SUV having more power, so why don't you go drive a Hyundai Santa Fe?

You make very poor arguments, Mr. Thai ice tea.

IdriveFast

maybe you didnt read the rest of the thread, thai was implying that bmw has not compromised because their m division has not made a M X, while AMG has by making a ML55 and G55.

i argued that bmw making the X5 4.6 and 4.8 is no different than AMG making the ML55 or G55.

In the end both cars are compromises that dont go too fast, handle very well, etc... only thing is that the G55 is much faster.

I agree that AMG compromised by making the ML55 G55. HOWEVER the point of my arguement was that BMW has also compromised by making the X5 4.6 and 4.8, which thai denies



please read the entire post

Thai

Some people just can't read. The point is that it is ridiculous to take a classic military off-roader and convert it into a hot-rod. It's like Jeep taking a C55 AMG and converting it into a rock crawler. Instead of putting in a bigger engine, Jeep straps on a transfer case for low-range and big redneck mud tires. Do you get my point??!! It's not because the G55 has so many horses...it's the principle of taking a military off-roader and making it into something that it is definitely not. It's rather simple...my 5-year old nephew can understand it.

My other point is that at least the BMW X5 was made for on-road handling from the very beginning and therefore the conversion to X5 4.8 does not look THAT bad. Same thing for Cayenne. Yet, another simple point.

Since no one is looking it up, here are G-wagen's running gears: Lockers at both ends, recirculating steering, slow & heavy steering, heavy-duty AXLES at both ends, heavy gas pedal (good for off-roading), transfer case for low-range, body-on-frame design, brick wall aerodynamics, high center of gravity, poor seating position (for a sports car), no seating support for sporty driving, over 5500 lbs of steel, narrow track, etc...............i can go on and on, but you get my point. These things are great for off-roading, but not for high-speed traveling!

Now compare G's stuff above to a X5...big differences. Next, compare X5's running gear to a sports car...not nearly as many differences. Get it yet??!!!!!

X5 4.8 does not look nearly as bad as G55 AMG. Read this statement again to fully understand it. I am not a big fan of X5, but it looks better than G55 AMG in terms of it's purpose and function.

BTW, the G-wagen's ESP setting is ultra-sensitive...IMO, rightfully so because it such a tall and narrow-tracked SUV. So, i am not even sure if a G55 owner can even explore it's small potential. On another G-wagen forum, many owners complain of this. Strange enough, even in "dyno mode", ESP still comes on!

I love how the newcomers to this thread just jump in and shoot off their mouth...READ THE WHOLE THREAD BEFORE POSTING.

BTW, Mr. Thai Ice tea (soooo funny and original! ) DOES TAKE HIS g-WAGEN OFF-ROAD. I do use it to full potential. Thanks for asking! And you should read up on G-wagen's military history before posting pure crap!

Here's the link to my truck on a recent off-roading trip to Colorado (9/04):

http://www.toyota-4runner.org/showth...&threadid=5881

You make very poor arguments, Oggle...dumba$$.

reggid

I read all the posts, but was eluding to the fact that all BMW and MB are comprimised in some way. e.g.the C class handling is compromised to some extent to give a better ride and BMW often do the opposite with their M3 to give better handling they have a poorer ride.

i have to agree partly with thai in that bmw M is all about motorsport breed and by not making a M X car it has not been comprimised (the M brand). But i don't think the AMG name has been tarnished by the ML55 in any way, but if BMW made an M car out of an X car it would devalue the M name. Afterall M is different to AMG in their philosphy and an ML fits AMG better than an X fits an M IMO.

btw i think they go well and handle pretty good

EKaru

A couple years ago, I remember going through the mbusa website and saw that there was a G55 AMG model.. I thought it was ridiculous because the for-street performance upgrades would do absolutely nothing for it off road, though I wasn't surprised in the least. It's been the American way to "keep up with the Jones's," being that we're such a image conscious society. So a vehicle like that is simply for the ego being that probably none of the G55 buyers will ever take their "performance SUVs" off road. By the way isn't it dangerous for a vehicle to have that kind of performance given its high center of gravity?
Eric...

cntlaw

True, it's danger. But insurance company would only look at accident statistics of the car models and the claims records and professions of car owners to determine the 'risk'.

Here, No insurance company will accept Subaru WRX and Honda Civic Type-R. I did not think they are more dangerous than M55 , C55 ; execept most owners of them were fool around kids and had had the most serious accident statistics.

It is all about who are the drivers.

EKaru

I'm just assuming that extra ooomph would give someone a false sense of security... It was built to be an off-roader, and not a performance vehicle. Sure it accelerates faster than most sports sedans, but what happens when you quickly approach that turn. Performance SUV ... what an Oxymoron..
Eric...

Thai

Finally, someone who sees my point!

cntlaw

The Porsche Canyenne Turbo designer might be able to tell us his view

EKaru

The Porsche Cayenne Turbo isn't an SUV... It's more an S.ports A.ctivityV.ehicle (crossover) like the BMW X5, Caddy SRX, Infiniti FX... The Mercedes G-class is STRICTLY an SUV...
Eric...

cntlaw

Got your point . The G is .

neoprufrok

I'd just like to point out that you've shot your mouth off about things you don't quite understand either.

I tried to stay out of this debate after my last post, but its clear that the only thing you want to do is be stubborn and not even recognize when you're clearly in the wrong. I recognized that I was wrong about the S4 Quattro always taking an M3 on a track, and I recognize that an M3 is a better driver's car than a C55.

However, in every post you've made on this thread, you've given us anecdotal evidence and misunderstanding as proof of your points - that doesn't fly when someone is trying to convince me.

Instead, your posts just come across as incessant whining combined with overzealous rationalizing. Its amazing that you can't see that at least 4 to five poeple on this board clearly disagree with you - and no one supports you. While I'm not asking you to accept our conclusions, at the very least, show some understanding of it.

To me, your posts are as useful as two lesbians who are the last humans on earth.

neoprufrok

All SUV's are more dangerous than passenger cars. In fact, off-road SUV's have a higher chance of fatality in an accident than a "SAV" such as Porsche or a BMW. The NTHSA data shows this.

I don't like any SUV, but that's me.

EKaru

Exactly, which is why it makes no sense to have a high performance engine in an already unstable curve handler like the G-class.... That's like having an offroad package for the Vette.. Sounds preposterous and makes absolutely no sense....
Eric...

Like seeing those Dodge Caravans with spoilers... What's the purpose?

Thai

Show me where i am wrong.

Thanks, Thai.

Thai

And your point is????

neoprufrok

Here's where you are wrong.

Lambasting AMG as a sellout

No matter how you slice it both AMG and M are tuning arms of their respective German manufacturers. You argue that M is "trying" harder to stay true to their roots. Yet you do not define what these roots are. From my perspective, they made an M3 (E46) and M5 (E39) that were both heavier and more numb than the previous generation M's. In reality, what M does is similar to what AMG does - they take a luxury car and make it faster. Their approaches are different, and there is nothing wrong or "pretend" about it.

Saying that not including an LSD is unacceptable
I think its safe to say that most people (including you and me) can agree that LSD's offer a performance benefit to cars - if driven hard. I think its also safe to say that our cars, whether it be an M3, A4, or C55, are all compromises between luxury and sport.

For one, each manufacturer decides what they can include to keep the price at a certain point. I'm sure that MBZ thought about an LSD. I'm sure BMW thought about aluminum bodywork for the M3 or even lightweight carbon fiber seats for the M3. My point being that you can argue that very high performing components (such as LSDs) should be on all high performance cars. But I doubt that any of us would want to buy a C55 for 70k just to include those things. The reason that cars like a Miata offer a Torsen is because the rest of the car is cheap to build, and Mazda can make a good business case for offering it. MBZ apparently could not. Am I disappointed yes, but I'd hardly call it "unacceptable."

Second, you fail to recognize that every car is a compromise if any thought of luxury comes into play. The e46 M3 should have manual steering if it were to truly embody the "ultimate driving machine" moniker. But BMW felt the need to cater to more luxury oriented drivers - and thus, had to make a compromise between sport and luxury. They did this for profit - not for the pure essence of a sportscar. So in fact, they themselves aren't truly "being real." No one who owns a C55 denies the fact that tehy chose the car for luxury purposes and not purely sports purposes. I would gladly buy a used Supra and mod that if I wanted a pure sports car. Better yet, I'd go out and buy a Lotus Elise. But I don't need a pure sports car - I need a luxury car that happens to perform well.





Again, in essence, I agree with your first post that an LSD would be nice and is a benefit to high performance cars. However, I do not think that you needed to deride the AMG name and trample the C55 because it lacked one component.

Finally, I called your posts useless because you're doing nothing more than spinning the facts to agree with your own reality. Baghdad Bob would be proud. A truly useful poster not only can post their opinion, but is open to the fact that he/she maybe wrong and that there are reasons other people think a different way. As I said earlier, you convinced me that an S4 can be taken by an M3. You also convinced me that the G55 is an unfortunate venture for AMG. Public forums work when a healthy debate and recognition of that well made points of that debate (whether in agreeance with your position or not) occur. Flaming and spinning does nothing but to anger people.

MrAMG

[QUOTE=oggle]Look at the SUVs on the road. How many people ACTUALLY take them offroading? So basically according to Thai's logic, all SUVs are useless. And the G, as according to him, is a "military" vehicle. Yeah right... what do you do? Pretend you're GI Joe driving in the mine fields of Iraq? What a joke.

LOL so hard that I farted infront of my mother-in-law!

oggle

Thai, your arguments don't make any sense.
On-road? The whole point of an SUV is for OFF-ROADING. Making an SUV handle well of on-roading is just as "useless" as giving it more horsepower for on-roading! Oh wait it's an "SAV"? Wtf is that? An sports car wannabe SUV? Talk about confused! Do you have some sort of autism where you can't see out of your own narrow field of vision?

So, why did you buy the G? You driving through mine fields in Iraq? If not why buy a "MILITARY" vehicle? Oh you mean, you just wanted to be "useless"?

Your arguments don't hold any water. You sound like whipping boy for some BMW marketing guy.